The poll this week has five questions, one for each of the five proposed constitutional amendments on Missouri’s August 5th ballot. The poll questions in the right sidebar are brief because of software, but here is the official ballot language for each:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure that the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed? The potential costs or savings to governmental entities are unknown, but likely limited unless the resolution leads to increased litigation costs and/or the loss of federal funding.

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right? State and local governmental entities should have no direct costs or savings from this proposal. However, the proposal’s passage will likely lead to increased litigation and criminal justice related costs. The total potential costs are unknown, but could be significant.

Should the Missouri Constitution be changed to enact a temporary sales tax of three-quarters of one percent to be used solely to fund state and local highways, roads, bridges and transportation projects for ten years, with priority given to repairing unsafe roads and bridges? This change is expected to produce $480 million annually to the state’s Transportation Safety and Job Creation Fund and $54 million for local governments. Increases in the gas tax will be prohibited. This revenue shall only be used for transportation purposes and cannot be diverted for other uses.

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to create a “Veterans Lottery Ticket” and to use the revenue from the sale of these tickets for projects and services related to veterans? The annual costs or savings to state and local governmental entities is unknown, but likely minimal. If sales of a veterans lottery ticket game decrease existing lottery ticket sales, the profits of which fund education, there could be a small annual shift in funding from education to veterans’ programs.

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that the people shall be secure in their electronic communications and data from unreasonable searches and seizures as they are now likewise secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects? State and local governmental entities expect no significant costs or savings.

Please vote in the poll, I have answers to cover if you’re undecided, don’t plan to vote, or if you’re not a Missouri voter. Also, please don’t pick out just the one or two you might be passionate about, please select an answer for all five. Thank you.

— Steve Patterson

JZ71

I’m always skeptical when some group decides that they need a constitutional amendment to “protect” them from their government and from fellow citizens. In most cases, there may (or not) be a kernel of truth in their fears, but the reality is that 99% of the fear is unrealistic hype. Laws are passed by the majority and vetted in multiple court cases. Reasonable people living reasonable lives (and not getting in the faces of their neighbors) don’t need more laws, much less constitutional amendments. It’s only when someone becomes either paranoid or anti-social does the need for “government” intervention start to get on their radar.

A constitutional amendment is a big club. It’s much harder to change one once it’s enshrined in the constitution (either state or federal). One and five will both “solve” problems that don’t really exist, while seven and eight are both cases of our state legislature abdicating their fiscal responsibility. Nine is the only one that I’ll probably vote for, and not because it’s great legislation, but because it will further the discussion. In reality, most people already over-share online, and the information is already out there (like how I’ll be voting) – the government just needs to look, not dig or entrap.

Yaha

Yeah, especially like the Bill of Rights, the 1st 10 Amendments to the US Constitution! We don’t need those!

We do need to fix our roads, but we don’t need a constitutional amendment to increase the gas tax, just a vote of the legislature and a signature by the governor! If you see a need to pass a law to, say, protect nose picking, go ahead, go to the legislature, get it passed and get it signed. But explain why it is of such grave importance that we would/should need to amend the constitution? The only reason groups are taking this path is a) because they can’t convince enough legislators that they really aren’t crazy / too self-centered, and b) because they want to make it really, really hard to ever change their crazy / self-centered legislation.

We elect legislators, in theory, to consider the merits of every bill they pass. And while this is far from a perfect process, it sure beats relying on the electorate voting based mostly based on paid ads and sound bites. How many voters are going to read the text of these proposed amendments, much less understand their true meaning? Why / how do “family” farms need “protecting”? What threats are they facing? The same goes with gun laws – what state-level efforts are restricting the right to protect oneself? Paranoia is not a good reason to restrict the legislatures from doing its job!

Amendment #1 seems vague, and I’m not even sure what it means or why it is needed. But, the people I see speaking out against it are the idiots who believe that GMOs cause cancer (because the “Food Babe” told them so), that “organic” food is somehow “healthier” than conventionally grown food and that gluten-free food will lead to weight loss. I figure if the stupid are against something, I should be for it.

http://urbanreviewstl.com/ Steve Patterson

So you favor puppy mills?

Izzy Goldsteinberg

No. A lot of very smart people oppose puppy mills.

http://urbanreviewstl.com/ Steve Patterson

Amendment 1, if passed, would block regulation of puppy mills:
“Amendment 1 is a concerted effort to shield factory farms and concentrated agricultural feeding operations from regulations to protect livestock, consumers and the environment. Voters should say “no” to this unnecessary and potentially harmful proposal.”

The whole point is to ban ANY regulations on the farming industry. This is from a group SUPPORTING the amendment:

“This amendment was pursued by Farm Bureau and other groups across every agricultural segment to protect Missouri’s most important business. Amendment #1, if passed, will make farming and ranching a right in Missouri, similar in scope and protection to the speech and religion already in Missouri’s Constitution.”

Did you even read the article you linked to? Where does it say it will “ban ANY regulations on the farming industry”?

bailorg

By making “farming and ranching a right in Missouri, similar in scope and protection to the speech and religion” it will make it as difficult for the legislature to regulate farming as it is for the legislature to regulate people’s rights to freedom of speech and religion.

Izzy Goldsteinberg

I bet farmers will be able to murder people on their farms!!!1!1!!11!!!1!! Because, after all, they have the right to farm!

Abby AngryOwl

Here’s a smart person’s take on Amendment 1 that goes much deeper than GMO s, if you’re interested in learning more.

Besides, I think vague language has no place in the Constitution.

Jrlh

You don’t have to be real bright to realize that if a crop is genetically altered to where you can spray a product on the crop the entire growing season, that the residues are going to be a lot greater, than if just used it Pre-emergent. So sure, if you feel Glyphosate is safe to ingest….Go for it…Personally I would like to know.

Izzy Goldsteinberg

You and I (and everyone else reading this) have been ingesting Glyphosate for decades. Are you dead yet?

Also, “to where you can spray a product on the crop the entire growing season”….how often do you think farmers spray? Have you ever been to a farm? Have you ever met a farmer? I bet I know the answer.

Fred Reiss

Amendment 7, if approved, would be the largest tax increase in the history of Missouri. This is a regressive tax that unfairly affects working families, the elderly, low-income individuals, and students.
It’s purpose is to provide additional funds for MoDOT to use in their continued unprecedented building/construction projects.
The stated mission of the Missouri Department of Transportation is “to provide a world-class transportation experience that delights our customers and promotes a prosperous Missouri”. A mission that lofty and noble could never be satisfied or run out of ways to spend money. One can’t fault MoDOT for spending as much money as they can get their hands on in pursuit of its grand mission. That’s MoDOT’s role. Someone else has to take the responsibility for restraining MoDOT’s thirst for funding, and it shouldn’t be parties who feed at the MoDOT trough such as construction companies, labor unions, transportation engineering firms, etc. MoDOT must be restrained by the voters on August 5th.
The obvious vote on Amendment 7 is NO.

arch1432

I am against the veterans Lottery ticket simply because the legislature lied to us before and the money from the lottery di not add to taxes spent on education it offset money being spent on education. Letting the politicians, who are all of questionable character, stick their nose under the tent and change the rules of the lottery allocations is a sure way for them to take the lottery and modify it beyond recognition.

Bobby Friend

I am opposed to amendment 7 & 8 for exactly the same reason: I don’t trust the Jefferson City politicians.

Recall that the lottery revenue was going to all go to our schools — and it has. However, what our elected officials didn’t tell us is that they intended to reduce the schools funding by the amount of money generated by the lottery. Therefore, the schools broke even. In theory they didn’t lie, they were just not transparent. I feel both of the amendments (7&8) are the same shell games and therefore I won’t put money in politicians hand for them to squander it away on something else.

Jam

(1) No -( 5) No -(7) No -(8) No -(9) No.

Jrlh

I get voting against #1 But #5?

http://urbanreviewstl.com/ Steve Patterson

“Worst consequence of passage: In a state in which a majority of voters rejected concealed carry as recently as 15 years ago, this legislation would chill any sort of sane gun-control measures for all time. As if the NRA needed any help.” http://www.stlmag.com/news/think-again/think-again%3A/

Heather Weaver

We already have this right at the Federal level, adding this to the state Constitution is redundant and unnecessary.

Mike F

5 is essentially a cynically ideological Republican response to the paranoid nutjobs who think the Federal gubmint is coming the take ther gunz. As noted the right to bear arms is protected in our Constitution. (Seems that all of the gun-owning whackjobs don’t even want to talk about the first half of the Second Amendment, “A well-regulated Militia…”; a bunch of unhinged, brainwashed-to-within-an-inch-of-their-sanity gun freaks does not constitute a “well-regulated Militia”. Nor does the lobbying arm of the small-arms manufacturers–the NRA–constitute regulation).

Mike F

NO, on all but 9, although this, too, is likely a sop to the crazed right-wingers who think Pres Drone-bama is personally collecting their information. Regardless of how much information we deposit online or elsewhere, it is still against the law for the government, specifically the NSA, to conduct surveillance on its citizens, and to collect that information in massive databases in the middle of Utah. The FISA court, which has significant flaws of its own–especially after the re-write–is the response from the 70’s to revelations that government agencies were spying on anti-war groups, etc. Funny, rarely does the government spy on right-wing groups, certainly not to the extant that they spy on nuns, priests, anti-nuke groups, pacifists, environmentalists and the groups they belong to, unions, the Occupy movement, and a host of others.

Star Jesus VanAllen

I don’t like any of the props, except maybe the lottery. Let’s eliminate all taxes & have a separate lottery for everything. Paying taxes s/b voluntary.

Nobama

5 YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JZ71

WHY??????????????????????????????

Comment on this Article:

Name

Email

Website

SUNDAY POLL (8AM-8PM SUNDAYS)

The Sunday Poll isn't scientific, but a way to see what readers think on different topics.
NOTE: This poll was closed early at 11:22am because the results weren't accutete.
What is your age?

When an urban building is razed, replaced by grass, it’a no surprise that nearby residents will soon walk their dogs there — that’s just common sense. Now some residents, adjacent to the vacant Cupples 7 site, aren’t happy walking their dogs on grass — they want a large fenced dog park where ...